[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[Barbarian]

Bob's recycling his Patterson scam again. But Patterson confirmed that the quote miners had dishonestly edited his words.

Why would Bob desperately hang onto a story he knows is false?

It's all he has.

 

[Guest]

If ID is a scientific theory, how would you disprove that?

ID is the principle of discriminating in FAVOR of ID over background noise that "rocks can generate given enough mass time and energy" - so if you want to PROVE that AM/FM radio does not "exist" --- have at it.

A more "realistic effort" would be to frame your question in a way that makes sense. for Example you might say it this way --- "IF ID science claims the data leads to design in a given area -- HOW can I prove it is NOT designed" (A very different question than trying to prove "NOTHING appears to be intelligently designed" as you appear to wildly propose).

THE TESt would be to SHOW (for the same phenomina being claimed as an example of ID) that rocks CAN DO IT by themselves given enough time mass and access to energy .

Whether that is AM/FM CDMA or even DNA-RNA protein synthesis. Pick one of the claims then show a rock doing it.

Step 1. Pick your example of ID being CLAIMED - that you would like to SHOW a ROCK doing!

Step 2. And then "do the math" -- do the experiment SHOW your claim has substance.

But Imagining "well I could do it... if I really wanted to" means nothing.

Bob

You miss my point entirely. For something to be science, it has to be able to be disproved by facts (whether those facts exist or not is another story). For example, let us imagine the following hypothetical examples: If you got a big enough microscope to find out that an atom did not look like the accepted model, you would be disproving that theory.
If I could build a machine that created energy out of nothing, I would be disproving Newton's laws.
If you could find a fossil of a poodle in rock dated older than the dinosaurs, that would instantly disprove evolution.

If intelligent design is science then it must be able to be disproved under certain, hypothetical circumstances. If I could find a piece of evidence (not saying I can, this is just an example) that would disprove intelligent design, what would it be?
If there is no piece of data, hypothetical or real that I or anyone else could find that would completely disprove intelligent design then it is not science and therefore should not be taught in the science classroom.

 

[DavidLee]

Wow. So a bowl of parts on this radio repair guy's bench assembled itself into a circuit and called out to him?

Yep. He isn't a "radio repair guy" , of course. He basically invented genetic algorithms.

It shouldn't matter who he is if it happened the way you (and maybe he) say it happened, right? I'm willing to bet that it wasn't a bowl of parts laying on his bench that assembled themselves.

He still doesn't know how it works. In fact, he doesn't even know what physical principles are involved for some critical functions. But you still want to call him the "designer", right?

If the shoe fits...
Why don't you define designer for us?
Let me give you my definition (from OED):

designer |dəˈzīnər|
noun
a person who plans the form, look, or workings of something before its being made or built, typically by drawing it in detail : he's one of the world's leading car designers.
• [as adj. ] made by or having the expensive sophistication of a famous and prestigious fashion designer : a designer label.
• [as adj. ] upscale and fashionable : designer food.

I could be wrong. Who knows what inanimate evolution is capable of?

Quite a bit, apparently. Much of it useful.

Except that designers are evaluating the results of these experiments and only accepting the best ones according their own criteria. Oh, and the experiments are happening on man-made machines (that did not construct themselves). And the experiments are designed by men to improve other man-made machines that still don't construct themselves. The experiments don't happen by themselves, or by chance. The improvements don't happen by themselves, or by chance.
The whole process is by design. The whole process is orchestrated by intelligent people. You know the rest.

If we can all see it, it makes no difference what you call it. We'll try and correct your usage of the language, but you have to be willing. To redefine a common word so it fits a particular explanation or supports an argument when the word would not otherwise, is sophistry, no matter who does it.

Again, you'll have to take that up with engineers, not biologists. But I think they have a better handle on the language than you do.

So you agree that re-definition is taking place?

No. Have you never programmed in LISP? No one writes the algorithms that actually run in LISP; it reprograms itself.

Only a very little many years ago. LISP is a programming language. Someone designed it.

You're confusing the language with the program. Yeah, it does some amazing new things. Here's where you can learn about it...

I have used LISP in years past. You should download the package (first two links from a google search):
http://www.stats.uwo.ca/computing/lisps ... d_lisp.htm
or:
http://www.brothersoft.com/lisp-studio- ... 14749.html
And let us know what it come up with at your behest. Should you actually need to be involved with the process, well, why don't we just see.

Well, you didn't expect that evolution had any applications in engineering, either. So it's not surprising.

I still don't. Now many others probably don't either, thanks to your attempts to support your pre-conceived notion that evolution is everywhere despite evidence to the contrary.

I expect you to separate some of my statements and say I proved your point.

I think you were very helpful to me,in clearing up some misconceptions about evolution, if that counts.

What did I just say? This thread has gone beyond ridiculous. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[lordkalvan]

.....If intelligent design is science then it must be able to be disproved under certain, hypothetical circumstances. If I could find a piece of evidence (not saying I can, this is just an example) that would disprove intelligent design, what would it be?
If there is no piece of data, hypothetical or real that I or anyone else could find that would completely disprove intelligent design then it is not science and therefore should not be taught in the science classroom.

Exactly. It will be instructive to see if such an hypothetical piece of evidence can even be imagined.

Your point about poodles in the fossil record is well taken and echoes J.B.S. Haldane's famous 'rabbits in the Precambrian' and Richard Dawkins' "evolved" ;-) 'hippos or rabbits in the Precambrian' challenges. For my part, I would be happy to see evolutionary theory immediately invalidated by the discovery of ichthyosaur and dolphin fossils together, as palaeontologists estimate about a 40 million year gap between the disappearance of the one in the fossil record (c 90 mya) and the appearance of the ancestors of the other (c. 50 mya). Interestingly, modern sharks appeared c. 100 mya and overlap both ichthyosaur and dolphin, but all three have never been discovered in strata that can be dated to the same period.

 

[Barbarian]

Wow. So a bowl of parts on this radio repair guy's bench assembled itself into a circuit and called out to him?

Barbarian observes:
Yep. He isn't a "radio repair guy" , of course. He basically invented genetic algorithms.

I'm willing to bet that it wasn't a bowl of parts laying on his bench that assembled themselves.

Rather an ingenious apparatus that allowed the circuit to invent itself. His real contribution was to find a way to make natural selection work on circuits.

Barbarian observes:
He still doesn't know how it works. In fact, he doesn't even know what physical principles are involved for some critical functions. But you still want to call him the "designer", right?

If the shoe fits...

And it doesn't. How on earth can there be a designer who doesn't even understand the "design?"

Why don't you define designer for us?
Let me give you my definition (from OED):

designer |dəˈzīnər|
noun
a person who plans the form, look, or workings of something before its being made or built, typically by drawing it in detail : he's one of the world's leading car designers.
• [as adj. ] made by or having the expensive sophistication of a famous and prestigious fashion designer : a designer label.
• [as adj. ] upscale and fashionable : designer food.

Let's see... the first is out, since he didn't plan the form, look, or workings of the circuit. Couldn't, in fact.

Second is out; not much fashionable here, except maybe to advanced engineering labs.

Third is also not applicable; science and engineering is not upscale and fashionable

I could be wrong. Who knows what inanimate evolution is capable of?

Barbarian, thinking of better diesel engines:
Quite a bit, apparently. Much of it useful.

Except that designers are evaluating the results of these experiments and only accepting the best ones according their own criteria.

We can do that in nature, too. It's called animal husbandry. It works as well in real evolution as it does in engineering.

Oh, and the experiments are happening on man-made machines (that did not construct themselves).

Here, you're confusing the apparatus with the circuit that evolved in it. The organism is not the environment.

And the experiments are designed by men to improve other man-made machines that still don't construct themselves.

Presently, they are limited to evolving themselves. But who knows what the future brings. Again, you've confused the environment with the entity that evolved. Two different things.

The experiments don't happen by themselves, or by chance.

Darwin's discovery was that it doesn't work by chance.

The improvements don't happen by themselves, or by chance.

Not by chance, but as you learned, they do happen by themselves. Set up the right environment, and it happens.

The whole process is by design.

Can't be. There is no designer to be found. No one even knows the physical principle by which the circuit works.

The whole process is orchestrated by intelligent people.

That's the point; the process was entirely apart from any design. It evolved.

If we can all see it, it makes no difference what you call it. We'll try and correct your usage of the language, but you have to be willing. To redefine a common word so it fits a particular explanation or supports an argument when the word would not otherwise, is sophistry, no matter who does it.

Barbarian observes:
Again, you'll have to take that up with engineers, not biologists. But I think they have a better handle on the language than you do.

So you agree that re-definition is taking place?

In the sense that you are trying to re-define "design" to include natural selection.

LISP is a programming language. Someone designed it.

Barbarian observes:
You're confusing the language with the program. Yeah, it does some amazing new things. Here's where you can learn about it...

Barbarian observes:
Well, you didn't expect that evolution had any applications in engineering, either. So it's not surprising.

I still don't.

As you see, engineers do. It's working for them.

Now many others probably don't either, thanks to your attempts to support your pre-conceived notion that evolution is everywhere despite evidence to the contrary.

No need to exaggerate. Evolution requires a way to introduce random changes, plus a selection process to choose the most fit solution.

I expect you to separate some of my statements and say I proved your point.

Barbarian observes:
I think you were very helpful to me,in clearing up some misconceptions about evolution, if that counts.

What did I just say?

A lot of misconceptions about evolution and natural selection. Allowed me to address them and clarify what it is.

This thread has gone beyond ridiculous.

It's been a very good thread, if understanding is your goal.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

That's why it was so productive.

 

[BobRyan]

Your point about poodles in the fossil record is well taken and echoes J.B.S. Haldane's famous 'rabbits in the Precambrian' and Richard Dawkins' "evolved" ;-) 'hippos or rabbits in the Precambrian' challenges. For my part, I would be happy to see evolutionary theory immediately invalidated by the discovery of ichthyosaur and dolphin fossils together, as palaeontologists estimate about a 40 million year gap between the disappearance of the one in the fossil record (c 90 mya) and the appearance of the ancestors of the other (c. 50 mya). Interestingly, modern sharks appeared c. 100 mya and overlap both ichthyosaur and dolphin, but all three have never been discovered in strata that can be dated to the same period.

I find it instructive that you argue against any form of intelligent design on these threads and also argue on other threads that God is endorsing this idea of yours -- that not only did HE NOT create as the Bible says -- but even the evidence 'in nature" of intelligent design can not be seen in anything he has done.

The argument against ID is "distinctively atheist" because it denys what "even the pagans can see clearly" IN nature.

So I undertand why atheists and even agnostics are here on this thread making their case -- but the "rest" are making self-conflicted arguments.

Having said that -- a lot of atheists "should" be able to "turn their radios on" and "see" if the circuits are able to "discriminate for ID EM wave forms" or not.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If ID is a scientific theory, how would you disprove that?

ID is the principle of discriminating in FAVOR of ID over background noise that "rocks can generate given enough mass time and energy" - so if you want to PROVE that AM/FM radio does not "exist" --- have at it.

A more "realistic effort" would be to frame your question in a way that makes sense. for Example you might say it this way --- "IF ID science claims the data leads to design in a given area -- HOW can I prove it is NOT designed" (A very different question than trying to prove "NOTHING appears to be intelligently designed" as you appear to wildly propose).

THE TESt would be to SHOW (for the same phenomina being claimed as an example of ID) that rocks CAN DO IT by themselves given enough time mass and access to energy .

Whether that is AM/FM CDMA or even DNA-RNA protein synthesis. Pick one of the claims then show a rock doing it.

Step 1. Pick your example of ID being CLAIMED - that you would like to SHOW a ROCK doing!

Step 2. And then "do the math" -- do the experiment SHOW your claim has substance.

But Imagining "well I could do it... if I really wanted to" means nothing.

Bob

You miss my point entirely.

First of all - we know that is not true.

For something to be science, it has to be able to be disproved by facts (whether those facts exist or not is another story).

Which makes Darwinism a "religion".

As Patterson observes "STORIES about how one thing came from another are stories EASY ENOUGH TO MAKE UP but they are NOT science because they can not be Tested".

Did you forget already?

And as for The RADIO not being "tested" in your argument above -- I beg to differ.

If intelligent design is science then it must be able to be disproved under certain, hypothetical circumstances.

Hint: That IS the "rocks can do it" argument.

You keep posting these things AS IF you do not understand that point of the argument being made.

The reason I keep saying "discriminate in favor of ID vs the background noise that ROCKS can make given enough time, mass and energy" is to SHOW that whether we are talking about ID EM wave forms OR we are talking about DNA - RNA Protein synthesis we have CLAIMS for ID that are TESTABLE as soon as you have a rock that can produce a segment of CNN over the air waves or we have a rock that can encode, decode, error-correct, transmit, translate, pattern based messages then generate proteins based on the the pattern transmitted and decoded.

You simply "Balk at the test" each time AS IF your failure to get the "background" to do what you claim 'was not done by anyone' - is a point in favor of your argument.

THEN you want us all to pretend that such a "failing" is "not noticed"???

We have learned not to "Expect" devoted darwinists to be critical enough of the arguments for Darwinism to notice that glaringly obvious problem.

But HOW could anyone "expect" non-Darwinists to be duped into ignoring that problem. How could anyone but an existing devotee to anti-knowledge in atheist darwinism fall for that?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Time for an experiment (since this is a Christian message board) ...

Question for our atheist and agnostic participants.

1. Given a choice between the Bible's statements on the origin for all species of life vs the darwinist position which one would you pick? The Bible?

2. When you consider the "gap" between those two -- would you think that this statement from the Bible is a good illustration of that "gap"?

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

3. Would you ever recommend this "For in Six Days the Lord MADE...heavens...earth...sea and ALL that is in them" statement to fellow darwinists as a good, accurate, reliable or honest way to "state Darwinism"?

4. Does it appear "blatantly self-contradictory" in your view to cling to a statement such as the the Bible example above AND at the same time - to cling to the idea that "NOT ONLY is the bible wrong about that.. but there is not even a TRACE of objective observable ID left in what we see in nature as well".

Dawkins and Darwin, Provine, Huxley etc all argued that Darwinism and statements from the Bible as we see above "are NOT reconcilable" in the extreme... are those Darwinists just wrong about what they think "Darwinism IS" or are they simply unnable to see the "clear example of a Darwinist summary statement" as shown in the Bible quote above?

5. Do you think it is possible to sweep the gap under the rug by bending or wrenching that Bible quote "sufficiently" so it ends up "looking like Darwinism" without changing the wording at all?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Your point about poodles in the fossil record is well taken and echoes J.B.S. Haldane's famous 'rabbits in the Precambrian' and Richard Dawkins' "evolved" ;-) 'hippos or rabbits in the Precambrian' challenges......

I find it instructive that you argue against any form of intelligent design on these threads and also argue on other threads that God is endorsing this idea of yours -- that not only did HE NOT create as the Bible says -- but even the evidence 'in nature" of intelligent design can not be seen in anything he has done.

I do not see that the post you have quoted is an argument either for or against ID; it was an argument as to one example of what I would regard as evidence invalidating evolutionary theory and a reference to similar arguments made earlier and perhaps more convincingly by Haldane and Dawkins. I have said over and over again that the Bible - and we are talking specifically about the OT here - can be divinely inspired, but that the interpretation of that divine inspiration is carried out by imperfect human beings and written down only thousands of years after the events it purports to be recounting. For these reasons alone, I doubt that the text of the OT is inerrant or free of ambiguities, contradictions and stuff that is just made up. It is also entirely possible to argue that the ID 'decision' occurred at the point of the Universe's creation and that everything subsequent to that has evolved from that initial act of divine genius.

The argument against ID is "distinctively atheist" because it denys what "even the pagans can see clearly" IN nature.

'Looks as if it was designed' is not evidence for 'really was designed'. In this sense ID is no more than the God-of-the-gaps argument writ anew.

So I undertand why atheists and even agnostics are here on this thread making their case -- but the "rest" are making self-conflicted arguments.

It depends entirely on the baggage you bring with you in terms of assumptions and interpretations of biblical text.

Having said that -- a lot of atheists "should" be able to "turn their radios on" and "see" if the circuits are able to "discriminate for ID EM wave forms" or not.

I'm afraid I still regard this argument as something of a red herring. ID is already a known, human-originated characteristic of some EM wave forms before the equipment able to detect them is constructed. ID in biological features is an assumed characteristic that is as yet lacking evidence to support it.

 

[lordkalvan]

Time for an experiment (since this is a Christian message board) ...

Question for our atheist and agnostic participants.

I think you should cast your net a little wider when eliciting responses to your questions as there are Christians who will give you answers that may be, on the face of it, nearer the views of the AA participants than, for the sake of argument, creationist Christians. So in this spirit I feel entitled to give at least partial answers to your questions.

1. Given a choice between the Bible's statements on the origin for all species of life vs the darwinist position which one would you pick? The Bible?

As you are aware, I do not regard this as an either/or choice; your question is phrased in such a way as to require a decision amongst only these alternatives. There is at least one other option and that is to regard the biblical, OT description of the origin of life as expressed in language and terms that the audience for whom it was intended could best comprehend. Thus it becomes metaphorical or allegorical rather than literal and so susceptible of a resolution not requiring such an either/or choice to be made.

2. When you consider the "gap" between those two -- would you think that this statement from the Bible is a good illustration of that "gap"?

See above. The 'gap' is created by one particular interpretation of biblical text. By other interpretations that are thoroughly reconcilable with a belief in God, that gap is illusory and created for ideological reasons.

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

By my argument there is no gap. The days of creation are not required to be literal days by subsequent reference; the days of the Jewish week echo the metaphorical days of creation rather than correspond directly with them as particular passages of time. The various meanings that we know can be assigned to yom support this interpretation.

3. Would you ever recommend this "For in Six Days the Lord MADE...heavens...earth...sea and ALL that is in them" statement to fellow darwinists as a good, accurate, reliable or honest way to "state Darwinism"?

Why should it be so recommended? This is a manufactured dilemma.

4. Does it appear "blatantly self-contradictory" in your view to cling to a statement such as the the Bible example above AND at the same time - to cling to the idea that "NOT ONLY is the bible wrong about that.. but there is not even a TRACE of objective observable ID left in what we see in nature as well".

Again you pose a dilemma of your own making. It is not a given that the divine act of creation necessarily implies the intelligent design of biological forms excluding either an evolutionary explanation or even the generation of life by natural processes.

Dawkins and Darwin, Provine, Huxley etc all argued that Darwinism and statements from the Bible as we see above "are NOT reconcilable" in the extreme... are those Darwinists just wrong about what they think "Darwinism IS" or are they simply unnable to see the "clear example of a Darwinist summary statement" as shown in the Bible quote above?

It would be more helpful if you could provide the specific statements by the scientists you refer to that allow you to pose your question. You are assuming that the 'clear example' that you identify is something more than a dilemma of your own making created as a rhetorical device. 'Those Darwinists' may well be both right 'about what they think Darwinism is' and able to see that the 'clear example of a Darwinist summary statement' is nothing of the kind. There is no either/or choice involved in this conceptualisation.

5. Do you think it is possible to sweep the gap under the rug by bending or wrenching that Bible quote "sufficiently" so it ends up "looking like Darwinism" without changing the wording at all?

Again alternatives imposed that are not necessarily the only interpretations possible. The gap exists only as a result of endeavouring to square OT literalism with a more profound understanding of the Universe that our intelligence allows us to progress towards. If God exists, we were given intelligence for a purpose and I doubt that it was to misapprehend the evidence that surrounds us. I cannot believe in a trickster God who has placed false evidence before us as a malicious test of blind faith in the pre-scientific writings of imperfect human beings.

 

[BobRyan]

Time for an experiment (since this is a Christian message board) ...

Question for our atheist and agnostic participants.

I think you should cast your net a little wider when eliciting responses to your questions as there are Christians who will give you answers that may be, on the face of it, nearer the views of the AA participants than, for the sake of argument, creationist Christians.

I do not doubt that Christian-Darwinists are likley to be closer to atheists and agnostics on this topic than would non-Darwinist Christians. I am hoping that a thread title like "Atheist Darwinism vs the Bible" would attract those Christian Darwinists and they would post there.

But "it is possible" that a lot of atheists and agnostics would not go there -- hence the invitation here for them to weigh in on "the text" -- "the english" as it were. It is my belief that all can read it and get the sense from the text -- more or less.

1. Given a choice between the Bible's statements on the origin for all species of life vs the darwinist position which one would you pick? The Bible?

L.K
As you are aware, I do not regard this as an either/or choice;

I wonder if Atheists and Agnostics would view it the same way given their understanding of Darwinism and given the fact that Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Huxley and others have already stated what they think of this "gap" from an agnostic-atheist POV vs the Bible.

But I could be wrong -- maybe they have always thought of the Bible as "preaching Darwinism".

L.K
your question is phrased in such a way as to require a decision amongst only these alternatives. There is at least one other option and that is to regard the biblical, OT description of the origin of life as expressed in language and terms that the audience for whom it was intended could best comprehend.

Indeed it is doubtful that very many of Moses' readers were "Darwinists".

so that leads to the obvious question -- how would a "non-Darwinist" read this text?

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I have to think that there are some Bible believing Christians and atheists and agnostics reading this thread that would look at that "easy to read text" above and all come to the same conclusion about what a non-darwinist group of "just released slaves from Egypt" would be thinking as they read those words in their Hebrew form.

I could be wrong -- but I think the answer is going to be "easy for all".

But who knows -- let's see what the reponse is -

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

By my argument there is no gap. The days of creation are not required to be literal days

Interesting "SIX Days You SHALL labor... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" ...

You argue that we should insert whatever darwinism "needs" to find a way to make that text "work for Darwinism"??

Do you suppose Moses' readers were doing that?

Do you think MOSES was doing that?

just curious.

I have to think there are going to be a LOT of readers that conclude that not only is that Bible text NOT an "example of Darwinism" that is "phrased another way" it is actually "opposed" to the point of Darwinism.

In fact it is not a reliable, accurate, honest presentation of Darwinism -- but rather is a reliable honest dependable presentation of a completely "different idea" believed or at least taught at that time.

But again - your view might be more popular among darwinist Christians. No doubt.

Bob asks

3. Would you ever recommend this "For in Six Days the Lord MADE...heavens...earth...sea and ALL that is in them" statement to fellow darwinists as a good, accurate, reliable or honest way to "state Darwinism"?

L.K
Why should it be so recommended? This is a manufactured dilemma.

Well if as you argue -- these words are really a very hard-to-understand veiled way of saying "Darwinism is the way it happened" then just how "reliable" is this supposed form of "Darwinism" anyway?

Bob asks

4. Does it appear "blatantly self-contradictory" in your view to cling to a statement such as the the Bible example above AND at the same time - to cling to the idea that "NOT ONLY is the bible wrong about that.. but there is not even a TRACE of objective observable ID left in what we see in nature as well".

Again you pose a dilemma of your own making. It is not a given that the divine act of creation necessarily implies the intelligent design of biological forms

Fine - in your "God did NOT created in Six days" reduced to "God did NOT create at all" redefinition of the text -- the question still remains for our atheists and agnostics -- IS THIS language (as we SEE it above in Exodus 20:8-11) the way to say in english "GOD did not Create, God did not even remotely DESIGN" --

Maybe their answer is "yes that is exactly the language we recommend for anyone wanting to promote the idea that the Bible says God did NOT create, God did NOT even design".

But I have to tell you -- I have gone a long way without hearing a single atheist or agnostic say "Hey Bob -- Darwinism is simple it is just the idea that IN SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth the sea and aLL that is in them (and rested the 7th day)- in fact that is why to this day Jews and Christians observe that same 7 day cycle". (It seems I only get THAT lecture from Darwinist Christians -- never atheists... never agnostics)

We will see.

Bob

 

[Rick W]

If God exists, we were given intelligence for a purpose and I doubt that it was to misapprehend the evidence that surrounds us. I cannot believe in a trickster God who has placed false evidence before us as a malicious test of blind faith in the pre-scientific writings of imperfect human beings.

Were the miracles of Christ feeding the multitudes real events?
Scripture says so but of course there are those who don't believe scripture.
Being that this is a Christian site and there are those who believe Christ and His miracles then I can argue evidence as simply something percieved by the senses or any means that makes a certain object or thing known through those senses.
The fish Christ created... if you were there and one was given to you how old would you say it would be? It's there in your hand, the evidence obiously there before you telling you that fish must be at least several months old or more. After all, surely it could not have matured over the course of several hours or even minutes. Without believing it was created that same day you would be compelled by all the evidence before you that the fish had age. And by all the evidence it could be shown where it was likely to have come from for that fish would indeed have an observable and known life cycle from egg to maturity.
It's not that God is a trickster but rather some may have a faith only in the things they have come to know.

 

[Guest]

You miss my point entirely.

First of all - we know that is not true.

You've yet to demonstrate otherwise. T_T

For something to be science, it has to be able to be disproved by facts (whether those facts exist or not is another story).

Which makes Darwinism a "religion".

I can't actually believe you said that after I'd already given you an example of a fact that would disprove evolution.

Most of the rest of your post was a TL;DR rehash covering statements from your friend Patterson that I've already explained the true meaning of for the benefit of everyone in this forum with a functioning brain. For the millionth time, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you can use that as a devastating argument against it.

And as for The RADIO not being "tested" in your argument above -- I beg to differ.

When did I say that? I didn't. Firstly, you still haven't really told me what your point about radios means, and secondly I'm not going to try and disprove any of the arguments for design, simply because all of them take the form of things that are mutually impossible to draw any conclusion from due to lack of evidence.
I don't know if you remember the rainbow example I gave a while ago. Again, if we don't know what causes something, that is not a good enough reason to slap a "God did it" sticker on the front of the case file and consider it closed. That is not how science works.

If intelligent design is science then it must be able to be disproved under certain, hypothetical circumstances.

Hint: That IS the "rocks can do it" argument.

You keep posting these things AS IF you do not understand that point of the argument being made.

No.
This has nothing to do with disproving any of your examples of ID. None whatsoever. I want one 'fact' that can disprove all of ID at once. Not a disproof of one claim, a disproof of the entire thing. It doesn't have to be a proof that actually exists, make something up.
This question is the kiss of death to Intelligent Design's validity as a science and the more you dodge it, the more it's going to look to everyone else that you don't have an answer.

What made-up piece of data completely disproves Intelligent Design? There it is again. I don't care if you ignore every other part of my post, just answer the question.

My answer to what disproves evolution would be a fossilised poodle dug up from rock older than the age of dinosaurs. If I could do that, it would destroy all of evolution as a theory by proving that poodles as they exist today did not evolve and therefore it is possible for a species to exist independent of the theory of evolution. Because under these made up circumstances evolution can be thoroughly disproved by facts, it is a science and not a faith. There's my answer.

So now the ball rests in your court and it's all on the line. Your turn.

 

[lordkalvan]

If God exists, we were given intelligence for a purpose and I doubt that it was to misapprehend the evidence that surrounds us. I cannot believe in a trickster God who has placed false evidence before us as a malicious test of blind faith in the pre-scientific writings of imperfect human beings.

Were the miracles of Christ feeding the multitudes real events?
Scripture says so but of course there are those who don't believe scripture.
Being that this is a Christian site and there are those who believe Christ and His miracles then I can argue evidence as simply something percieved by the senses or any means that makes a certain object or thing known through those senses.
The fish Christ created... if you were there and one was given to you how old would you say it would be? It's there in your hand, the evidence obiously there before you telling you that fish must be at least several months old or more. After all, surely it could not have matured over the course of several hours or even minutes. Without believing it was created that same day you would be compelled by all the evidence before you that the fish had age. And by all the evidence it could be shown where it was likely to have come from for that fish would indeed have an observable and known life cycle from egg to maturity.
It's not that God is a trickster but rather some may have a faith only in the things they have come to know.

My arguments were directed specifically towards the OT. However, the reported miracles of Christ are as subject to the 'laws of nature' as we understand them today as any other phenomenon and we are entitled to inquire as to their likely authenticity. Was the historic Christ no more than a teacher and exemplar who pointed the way to God as an ordinary man and whose followers for obvious reasons exaggerated his accomplishments long after his death? How can we know for certain? Whether on a small scale or a large scale, whether an object has 'real' age or is 'created with the appearance of age' is an utterly untestable notion for science and has no objective meaning for our understanding of the Universe and we may as well give up all scientific inquiry as inherently futile. In Steven Jay Gould's words the whole idea of 'created age'

it violates our intuitive notion of divine benevolence as free of devious behavior,

(The Flamingo's Smile, Penguin edition, London 1991, p.110)

In the 19th Century the Rev Charles Kingsley understood this fully as well when he wrote that he could not believe

that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie.

(Quoted ibid.)

 

[lordkalvan]

......it is doubtful that very many of Moses' readers were "Darwinists".

It is even more doubtful, in a pre-literate society, if very many individuals could read the OT at all. Most of the audience would understand interpretations of text provided by sages, scholars and priests.

so that leads to the obvious question -- how would a "non-Darwinist" read this text?

Why would a 'non-Darwinist' necessarily interpret it differently from a 'Darwinist'? Are you suggesting that only two interpretations are possible: 'non-Darwinist' or 'Darwinist'? Do you mean 'literalist' or 'non-literalist', in which case relative stances on the ToE become largely irrelevant.

<snip Ex 20>

I have to think that there are some Bible believing Christians and atheists and agnostics reading this thread that would look at that "easy to read text" above and all come to the same conclusion about what a non-darwinist group of "just released slaves from Egypt" would be thinking as they read those words in their Hebrew form.

And what gives you the confidence of assuming what conclusion your hypothetical groups would come to? We already know that Jewish scholars from as early as Talmudic times understood the OT 'in varying forms and under differing metaphors' (Rabbi Jospeh Hertz in the commentary I have already referred you to). On the other hand, we are still awaiting confirming evidence of the claim you made in support of your argument that ToE-accepting Orthodox Rabbis interpret the linkage between the 'days' in Exodus and the 'days' in Genesis as unequivocally as you do.

 

[BobRyan]

Well first of all we already have on record the fact that Bible believing Christians, ANd Darwin, ANd Dawkins AND Provine AND Huxley AND ... (Agnostic and atheist sources in Darwinism) all AGREE on the glaringly obvious existence of the "GAP" between what the Bible text "says" on the subject of all species of life --vs what Darwinism teaches.

And all see this as being soooo glaringly obvious even so-called "Christian Darwinists" would be very reluctant to actually "exegete" (honest and objectively render) Exodus 20:8-11 due to their desire to resort to "hand waiving" as they only imagine "no gap" because of their compromised position that clearly needs to have it "both ways".

But maybe atheists and agnostics here will all say "Darwin was wrong" as well as Huxley, Dawkins, Provine, Myers etc.

Or maybe you will find a way to exegete Exodus 20:8-11 such that it shows Moses preaching Darwinism. (So far your most thorough treatment of it has been in the form <snip Ex 20:8-11> in a true "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" solution)

We will see.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

By my argument there is no gap. The days of creation are not required to be literal days

Interesting "SIX Days You SHALL labor... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" ...

You argue that we should insert whatever darwinism "needs" to find a way to make that text "work for Darwinism"??

Do you suppose Moses' readers were doing that?

Do you think MOSES was doing that?

just curious.

I have to think there are going to be a LOT of readers that conclude that not only is that Bible text NOT an "example of Darwinism" that is "phrased another way" it is actually "opposed" to the point of Darwinism.

In fact it is not a reliable, accurate, honest presentation of Darwinism -- but rather is a reliable honest dependable presentation of a completely "different idea" believed or at least taught at that time.

But again - your view might be more popular among darwinist Christians. No doubt.

Bob asks

3. Would you ever recommend this "For in Six Days the Lord MADE...heavens...earth...sea and ALL that is in them" statement to fellow darwinists as a good, accurate, reliable or honest way to "state Darwinism"?

L.K
Why should it be so recommended? This is a manufactured dilemma.

Well if as you argue -- these words are really a very hard-to-understand veiled way of saying "Darwinism is the way it happened" then just how "reliable" is this supposed form of "Darwinism" anyway?

Bob asks

4. Does it appear "blatantly self-contradictory" in your view to cling to a statement such as the the Bible example above AND at the same time - to cling to the idea that "NOT ONLY is the bible wrong about that.. but there is not even a TRACE of objective observable ID left in what we see in nature as well".

Again you pose a dilemma of your own making. It is not a given that the divine act of creation necessarily implies the intelligent design of biological forms

Fine - in your "God did NOT created in Six days" reduced to "God did NOT create at all" redefinition of the text -- the question still remains for our atheists and agnostics -- IS THIS language (as we SEE it above in Exodus 20:8-11) the way to say in english "GOD did not Create, God did not even remotely DESIGN" --

Maybe their answer is "yes that is exactly the language we recommend for anyone wanting to promote the idea that the Bible says God did NOT create, God did NOT even design".

But I have to tell you -- I have gone a long way without hearing a single atheist or agnostic say "Hey Bob -- Darwinism is simple it is just the idea that IN SIX DAYS the LORD made the heavens and the earth the sea and aLL that is in them (and rested the 7th day)- in fact that is why to this day Jews and Christians observe that same 7 day cycle". (It seems I only get THAT lecture from Darwinist Christians -- never atheists... never agnostics)

We will see.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

L.K
Why would a 'non-Darwinist' necessarily interpret it differently from a 'Darwinist'? Are you suggesting that only two interpretations are possible: 'non-Darwinist' or 'Darwinist'?

Again -- "interesting" logic... instructive for the unbiased objective reader.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Interesting "SIX Days You SHALL labor... for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE" ...

You labour this point as if it is incontrovertible that the days of the Jewish week are an absolute chronological reflection of the days of creation week. In the first place, this relationship is not incontrovertible, In the second place, did it occur to you that the days of creation week may have been written so as to mimic the days of the Jewish week? In other words, are you sure which is the cart and which the horse here?

You argue that we should insert whatever darwinism "needs" to find a way to make that text "work for Darwinism"??

Nonsense. 'Darwinism' needs nothing from biblical text. Whether the text 'works for Darwinism' or not has no impact whatsoever on the scientific validity of the ToE. It stands apart from biblical text quite distinctly.

Do you suppose Moses' readers were doing that?

Do you think MOSES was doing that?

Are you suggesting that Moses' hypothetical readers' interpretation of OT text carries greater weight than the interpretations of later scholars whose work and opinions we can actually reference? Do you think that anyone knows what interpretation Moses placed on the text?

I have to think there are going to be a LOT of readers that conclude that not only is that Bible text NOT an "example of Darwinism" that is "phrased another way" it is actually "opposed" to the point of Darwinism.

Where arises your expectation of biblical text that it should include or exclude examples of Darwinism and that such inclusions or exclusions might thereby be interpreted as supporting or undermining ToE? Why do you believe that the 'correct' interpretation of the text in questions leads only to the conclusion that 'it is actually opposed to the point of Darwinism'?

In fact it is not a reliable, accurate, honest presentation of Darwinism -- but rather is a reliable honest dependable presentation of a completely "different idea" believed or at least taught at that time.

Your 'In fact it is not' statement is something of a strawman as, as far as I am aware, you are the only person here arguing that the text in question could be paraded as 'a reliable, accurate, honest presentation of Darwinism.'

And how have you determined the certainty that appears to underlie your use of the adjectives reliable, honest and dependable in the subsequent clause?

....if as you argue -- these words are really a very hard-to-understand veiled way of saying "Darwinism is the way it happened" then just how "reliable" is this supposed form of "Darwinism" anyway?

If you are interpreting my argument as saying this, then I have failed to make my argument clear. I have no opinion of the text in question as addressing the question of ToE at all, quite the contrary.

... in your "God did NOT created in Six days" reduced to "God did NOT create at all" redefinition of the text -- the question still remains for our atheists and agnostics -- IS THIS language (as we SEE it above in Exodus 20:8-11) the way to say in english "GOD did not Create, God did not even remotely DESIGN" --

Your reduction, not mine. 'God did not create in six actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them today' is not the same as saying 'God did not create at all;' this conclusion you attribute to me is entirely your own. The rest of your point therefore does not follow.